Claude Prompt: PI Case Evaluation Memo (Liability, Fault, Damages, Collectability)
Turns intake notes and the documents in hand into a candid internal evaluation memo: liability by element, comparative fault exposure, documented versus undocumented damages, collectability, evidence to preserve, and an accept / decline / investigate recommendation.
The Prompt
Variables (8)
| Variable | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| {{client_name}} | Client Name | Maria Gonzalez |
| {{incident_type}} | Incident Type | Motor vehicle collision |
| {{incident_date}} | Incident Date | 2026-06-14 |
| {{governing_state}} | Governing State | Colorado |
| {{case_facts}} | Intake Notes and Facts | Client was stopped at a red light on Colfax Ave when a delivery van struck her from behind. She told the officer she "felt fine" at the scene. First treatment was urgent care 9 days later... |
| {{fault_rule}} | Comparative Fault Rule | Paste the text of the governing comparative or contributory fault statute or pattern instruction, or write UNKNOWN |
| {{insurance_info}} | Insurance and Defendant Asset Information | Defendant driver: policy limits disclosed as 25/50 per carrier letter dated 2026-07-02. Van owned by employer, commercial policy not yet disclosed. Client UM/UIM: declarations page not yet received. |
| {{records}} | Records and Documents in Hand | Police report (3 pages), urgent care note dated 2026-06-23, MRI report dated 2026-07-10, billing ledger, two scene photos described, pay stubs... |
Expected Output
An internal evaluation memo with: a five-line summary and recommendation, sourced timeline, conflicts between sources quoted side by side, liability theories by element with weak points, comparative fault exposure, a damages table separating documented from undocumented items with a recomputed total that excludes pre-incident and unrelated charges, treatment problems, collectability, an evidence preservation action list, missing information, unsupported statements declined, declined requests, the accept / decline / investigate recommendation with its driving facts, and a closing Verification list that ends the output.
Usage Notes
Use at intake or after the first records arrive, before signing the client or spending on experts. Attach the intake notes, police or incident report, the medical records and bills you have, and whatever is known about coverage. Paste the governing comparative fault rule yourself: the prompt will not supply one, and it treats a case or rule cited in an adjuster's letter as an unverified assertion to be pulled and checked. Failure modes to watch: the client's own account treated as established fact, a mismatch in body side or incident date between records passing unnoticed, and a billing ledger total repeated without being re-added. Read the "Conflicts between sources" section first and check that the damages total excludes charges dated before the incident. Not legal advice. The attorney remains responsible for verifying every fact, figure and authority before use.
Double-check before use
- Where the memo says the client denied something, confirm the intake actually says so. In testing, silence was once recorded as a denial.
These are the places where this prompt was seen to slip when tested on sample cases with a small AI model.
Legal Sources Referenced
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (signer certifies claims and factual contentions after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances)
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) (consequences of failing to take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information)
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) (initial disclosure of a computation of each category of damages and the supporting documents)
Originally featured in: AI for Personal Injury Lawyers: Prompts for Demand Letters, Medical Summaries & Depositions
Related Prompts
Claude Prompt: Pre-Existing Condition vs. Aggravation Analysis From Medical Records
Separates the client's documented baseline from post-incident findings, builds a quoted before/after comparison for each body part, anticipates the defense reading of the same records, and drafts the questions to put to the treating physician.
Claude Prompt: Medical Lien and Subrogation Audit with Reduction Request Letter
Audits every lien and reimbursement claim on a settlement (Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA or other health plan, provider liens, med-pay), isolates unrelated charges and arithmetic errors, then drafts the reduction request. It never says a doctrine applies without the governing text.
Chronological Medical Treatment Summary From Records for PI Cases
Turns pasted medical records into a dated, source-quoted treatment chronology with recomputed visit counts and durations, treatment gaps listed without invented explanations, and conflicts between records shown, never resolved.
PI Intake Screening Checklist Generator for Paralegals
Builds a phone-ready intake screening form for a new PI inquiry: liability and damages questions, red-flag prompts, document requests, evidence-preservation steps and a scoring grid with your threshold applied exactly, and every limitation date left for you to verify.
* These prompts are drafting and analysis aids for licensed attorneys. They are not legal advice and do not replace professional judgment. AI output can contain errors, including invented citations and incorrect deadlines: verify every fact, figure, authority and deadline against primary sources before relying on it. Rules vary by jurisdiction, and you remain responsible for the final work product.